Cleveland v. Babeu et al

Filing 5

ORDER Petitioner's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. (Doc. 2 .) The Petition and this action are dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 1 .) The Clerk must enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/26/2012. (KMG)

Download PDF
1 2 SC WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Christopher Lamar Cleveland, 9 Petitioner, 10 vs. 11 Paul R. Babeu, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 12-2133-PHX-DGC (SPL) ORDER 14 Petitioner Christopher Lamar Cleveland, who is confined in the Pinal County Jail in 15 Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 16 U.S.C. § 2254 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will dismiss the 17 Petition and this action. 18 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 19 Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate trust 20 account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In Forma 21 Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b). 22 II. Petition 23 On October 9, 2012, Petitioner filed his Petition seeking pretrial habeas relief in 24 connection with pending charges in Pinal County Superior Court, case# CR2012-00144, in 25 which he is charged with being a sex offender who failed to file a notice of change of address 26 27 28 1 or name change.1 Petitioner asserts that, 2 5 The State of Arizona has been using a false entry on Petitioner’s criminal history file to pass off as a conviction in another state. Since 2001, the Petitioner has been wrongfully required to register based on a Santa Monica Superior Court ruling in California. Santa Monica has no superior court divisions. Therefore this entry is a fictional entry to a federal court.”He names Pinal County Sheriff Paul R. Babeu, the Arizona Attorney General, Governor Jan Brewer, and the Pinal County Superior Court as Respondents. 6 (Doc. 1 at 4.) In essence, Petitioner disputes that he is validly required to register as a sex 7 offender pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3824. 3 4 8 Petitioner filed his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but he seeks relief 9 as to his pending state criminal proceedings. Under § 2254, a court “shall entertain an 10 application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the 11 judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the 12 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). 13 Petitioner does not allege, nor does it appear, that he is challenging a state court conviction 14 or sentence. 15 Accordingly, to the extent that Petitioner seeks relief pursuant to § 2254, his Petition will be 16 denied as premature. Instead, he is seeking relief as to pending state criminal proceedings. 17 A petitioner may seek federal habeas relief as to pending state criminal proceedings 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Section 2241(c)(3) provides that “the writ of habeas corpus 19 [extends to persons who are] ... in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties 20 of the United States ....” See McNeeley v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003); 21 Carden v. State of Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980) (“district court had jurisdiction, 22 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, to issue [a] pretrial writ of habeas corpus”). However, the 23 abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), prevents a federal 24 court in most circumstances from directly interceding in ongoing state criminal proceedings. 25 26 1 27 28 See (last visited Nov. 21, 2012). On December 19, 2011, Maricopa County Superior Court issued a bench warrant for Plaintiff’s arrest after he failed to appear. See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa. gov/docs/Criminal/122011/m5030335.pdf (last visited Nov. 21, 2012). -2- 1 The Younger abstention doctrine also applies while a case works its way through the state 2 appellate process, if a prisoner is convicted. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City 3 of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989). Only in limited, extraordinary circumstances will 4 the Younger doctrine not bar federal interference with ongoing (non-final) state criminal 5 proceedings. Such circumstances include when a prisoner alleges that he is being subjected 6 to double jeopardy. See Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992). Speedy 7 trial claims may also be reviewed if a detainee is seeking to compel the state to bring him to 8 trial, rather than seeking dismissal of the charges, and the detainee has exhausted all of his 9 state court remedies. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489- 10 90 (1973); see In re Justices of Superior Court Dep’t of Mass. Trial Court, 218 F.3d 11, 18 11 & n.5 (1st Cir. 2000). 12 Petitioner is attempting to challenge his arrest and detention. Petitioner has not 13 alleged any ground that falls within the very limited circumstances in which a federal court 14 may intercede in ongoing state criminal proceedings under the Younger doctrine. He does 15 not assert a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, or facts to support 16 such violation, nor does he allege that his speedy trial rights have been violated. Thus, 17 Petitioner has not asserted a basis for a federal court to interfere in state criminal 18 proceedings. Because Petitioner’s grounds for relief do not fall within the very limited 19 circumstances in which a federal court may intercede in ongoing state criminal proceedings 20 under the Younger doctrine, the Petition and this action will be dismissed to the extent that 21 he seeks relief under § 2241 pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. 22 IT IS ORDERED: 23 (1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. (Doc. 2.) 24 (2) The Petition and this action are dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 1.) 25 26 27 28 -3- 1 (3) The Clerk must enter judgment accordingly. 2 DATED this 26th day of November, 2012. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?